CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Christian right? Although for you reading a book (be it the Bible or a dictionary) and believing that as a absolute definition of reality is sufficient, really the issue is a lot more complex.
"The information comes from Medical textbooks, Medical dictionaries…from universities such as Harvard and from such medical institutions as Mayo Clinic. Others come from Scientific Encyclopedias. NOTHING CHRISTIAN ABOUT THE SOURCES."
The fact that a fetus is a human is anything but complicated. It's a simple and straight issue that does not even take a degree in biology just to understand. In fact, simply searching for "When does life begins according to science?" will give you good results.
Its a very easy topic but pro-abortion always deny it.
The key word is 'according to science'. You mean specifically according to cell biology. However, when we consider when someone becomes a person legally and psychologically the question becomes much more complex. If I look in my legal dictionary it would tell me a person does not include a foetus until it takes its first breath. Oops. Two dictionaries with conflicting definitions. What now?
We should be asking what it is to be a person - what are the qualities that make us human. It shouldn't be: "DUH! Look in the dictionary! Obv city!!". This doesn't assist us at all.
Easy. You will have to give me the source of your dictionary. Then test how accurate it is in providing valid scientific facts
It is rational thinking that decides what makes a person and not some random opinions about life and a persons worth,which practically has no fundamental foundation other than societal norms that changes from time to time.
Science has already told the answer and it is time to end your denials.
Like what I said before: It is anything but complicated.
I agree that science has said life begins where life begins because life begins when it begins.
This is the legal definition:
"A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and of being charged with duties; while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised."
Let me ask you. What does it mean to be a person to you? To me, and to the legal profession, it is a term that embodies an equality of rights. There is a prima facie assumption that every person has the same rights. Do you really believe a embryo deserves the same rights as its host? I don't think so. So how are you able to say that some innocent people have rights that others don't? It is more convenient to refer to those without human rights (e.g. foetuses) as not being people. Quite frankly we can use language anyway we want and the legal definition isn't wrong - its just different to what science says. The scientific definition is not useful to law in which we need to distinguish what has human rights and what doesn't.
But whatever if we don't agree then: embryo = person without the rights of a person whereas born people = person with the rights of a person. Its just semantics.
First off, your definition gave no claim whether a fetus is a human or not. Second, why are you using the law when you know full well that it is based on societal norms which differs in every state and changes every generation?
If you wish to properly define a person in ways that will not change, use evidences that cannot be disputed by culture and societal acts.
Being a person is not limited by your abilities, nor personalities, not even body structure. Being a person is to be a part of the human race no matter how old or young, sick or well.
"A fetus is a person, all the rest are denials"-Anonymous
Perhaps the topic you are after is whether or not the life of a fetus can be negotiated?
First off, your definition gave no claim whether a foetus is a human or not
Clearly a foetus has no duties nor the corresponding rights. It cannot be a person legally.
Second, why are you using the law when you know full well that it is based on societal norms which differs in every state and changes every generation?
Because language is a social construct. We look at what the word person means by looking at its usage and the principles connected with it. It is not a scientific term but rather a philosophical or legal one.
Perhaps the topic you are after is whether or not the life of a fetus can be negotiated?
I don't understand the word negotiated in this context.
If you choose only to look at the scientific definition of the word person then that's up to you. As you say, you cant dispute that life begins at conception. I think you'll find though that the word person is much more comprehensively defined in law and philosophy than it is in science however. A more interesting debate is whether a embryo has personhood. This is what people mean generally when they talk about whether a foetus should be regarded as a person.
Clearly a foetus has no duties nor the corresponding rights. It cannot be a person legally.
Not in the United States, not yet.
It is not a scientific term but rather a philosophical or legal one.
The law has its foundations set in rationality and not spirituality. Every single person differs in their perspective on how valuable a life is, and it changes with time. The moment you use philosophy to dehumanize something that has been agreed upon by logic as a human, is the moment where you lost the argument.
A more interesting debate is whether a embryo has personhood.
An embryo could never have a duty. Due to its very nature it is incapable of this. Therefore it does not qualify for rights as a person.
The moment you use philosophy to dehumanize something that has been agreed upon by logic as a human, is the moment where you lost the argument.
I think you're the one that is dehumanising what it means to be a person (never disputed that it is 'human'). You're saying a person may merely be a zygote.
I agree, and it is what we are having right now.
Well not really. We're skirting around it because its difficult.... or rather I am if you're not. I just wanted to make the point that being a person, having personhood, is more than a question of biology.
A child has a duty to attend school, to behave well etc
No. I was saying: if you plan to abort a fetus, at least recognize that it is a person. And stop making excuses.
I think everyone recognises that its a biological fact that a foetus is alive.
Then what else? Philosophy? Religion? Political Culture? Societal Norms?
An answer that will change over time isn't an answer at all.
Well then you're going to struggle with the idea of personhood. There are no black and white answers. You can say that a foetus is biologically a person all you like but ultimately if you're talking about attributing rights to it you have to look at the social reality and you have to address philosophical issues.
I don't understand exactly what you want. To me all people are equal. You want to say that an embryo is equal to a person? Does that mean that its life should be just as important as the mothers? I don't quite understand what the importance is to you of calling it a person other than so you can emotively scream "you're killing a person!" when someone supports abortion.
A child has a duty to attend school, to behave well etc
You used a toddler who can already understand spoken language.I am referring to mere babies who's only ability is to live and grow, just like a fetus
I think everyone recognises that its a biological fact that a foetus is alive.
It depends on your definition of "Alive"
if you're talking about attributing rights to it you have to look at the social reality and you have to address philosophical issues
What philosophical issue? To be prank, almost all the arguments of pro-choice and pro-life revolves on comparing a fetus to a disabled and an elderly. Its a recycled debate over and over.
The only true measure in defining the personhood of an individual is by how many wants to protect his life. No cares abut the life of a fetus in the United States, hence it has no personhood. Its just that easy and it will change once it gained enough support.
Is this really what you call philosophical? The voice of the masses?
History has taught us one thing: Democracy isn't justice.
I don't understand exactly what you want.
I know abortion is a necessary evil. But my goal is simple: I hate it when people invent lies and try to objectify a fetus just so they can escape the guilt of murder.
It's clear that not all humans have the all the same rights. People of different ages have their rights in varying degrees until, at last, they are a legal adult. But at what point does a human, of any age, attain the basic right to life? Is it when they take their first breath? Because that can happen at various stages of development, and with technology it can happen fairly early.
If life, in general, starts at conception, when is the objectively defined beginning of life as a human? It's probably 18.
Your words has been thoroughly discussed by respected scientists and has been proven wrong. There is no excuse, its called murder whichever angle you look at
Appeal to authority fallacy. People once thought that the earth was flat and the center of the universe. Just because an idea is commonly thought does not make it legitimate in any way. Pregnancy begins when the blastocyst sheds the zona pellicuda and implants, usually in the woman's uterus, but even then it is not a baby. an embryo 5 weeks after fertilization is not a baby. Stop parroting what the religious right wants you to think. Are you a Christian? Do you believe in the Bible (goes to credibility).
Apparently, your words are nothing more than personal opinions. Click the link I gave and see for yourself how science says that life begins at conception.
When life begins is separate from when pregnancy begins. Scientific consensus is that pregnancy begins at implantation. When life begins is a religious question that cannot be answered by science.
All of them are comprehensive studies done by respected scientists, and all of them tells of how foolish it is to say that a fetus is not a human. Just the first links will show you what I mean.
Only someone who believes in pseudoscience instead of biology will say that life begins at birth
Fallacy fallacy. Disagreement does not equal a fallacy. When life begins is a religious question, not a scientific one. Only a complete moron would say that pregnancy begins before implantation, or that life begins before birth.
Well it's already fertilised.... And it already contains the genes from the parents and after 9 monyhs or so it's gonna become a human eventually so i think im siding with yes
Female Mammals have eggs, including humans. Us mammals don't lay them accept for the Platypus. Besides that, Mammals do have internal eggs that are that organism. What do you think the mentrual period is.
Female Mammals have eggs, including humans. Us mammals don't lay them accept for the Platypus. Besides that, Mammals do have internal eggs that are that organism. What do you think the mentrual period is.
A huge lump of cells in the shape of a person, not a tiny microscopic one made of only two (a sperm and an egg), there is a big difference. A microscopic thing that has no heart, brain or mind is not a person.
First off, a fertilized egg is not made up of 2 cells. It is a single cell that was activated by the sperm and learned how to multiply itself into many. Second, if it isnt a person then what is it?
Even an elementary biology will state that there is no exemption in the definition of offspring.
Link is all about the development of a baby. Or are you inviting me to a shallow linguistic argument? If you wish to add something that can lead to a fruitful debate, try something like this
And yes, what you see there are the very words of scientists who speaks of how foolish it is to say that a fetus is not a human.
And yes, what you see there are the very words of scientists who speaks of how foolish it is to say that a fetus is not a human
What I got from your link is that it is a matter of opinion as to when life/person-hood begins. My previous dispute was pointing out that majority of people don't even use the term "fetus" until about eight weeks after fertilization.
None of them are opinions the very first link alone is a scientific study backed by respectable universities. And for an even more comprehensive research, try this
The only people who denies the personhood of a fetus are the ignorant ones who have no idea of how biology works.
this may be shocking for you but Google search reveals the studies made by scientists wherein they wholeheartedly declare that life begins at fertilization...
Just to help you out, he can't figure out what research studies you are pointing to. He can't tell if it is done by the Mayo Clinic or Harvard because you keep telling him to search google instead of pointing to the actual research.
The tiny cells takes the shape of a tiny person fairly rapidly. At what point does the tiny lump of cells qualify as a person? If killing a person is wrong, isn't it of massive importance to determine when a person is a person?
A tiny of lump of cells is not a person. It is the seed of what may become a person.
So you judge a person's humanness by the amount of cells they have? What if my arm get's amputated? Am I less of a person? After all you're totes a fat sack of cells. Probably still growing.
The definition of a person is a human being regarded as an individual. maybe not a fertilised egg, but a foetus, is definitely connected and 100% dependent on their mother. The foetus is not an individual, so therefore not a person.
An egg is an egg. We buy unfertilized eggs, that will never become chickens.
I could have supported your car argument better. If the parts are just in the garage they are no different than the gametes, but if they come together, as the gametes have to become a fetus, then it has now become a car, albeit an undeveloped car.
I could have supported this one better as well. A tadpole is a stage in a frog's life.
With this one are you insisting that since a law is still a bill, that a person is still a fetus?
I liked this last one.
I didn't actually quote because they were ordered and it seemed like we would be at an understanding of which line I was referring to without it.
Well then what was the point of even stating that a law is still a bill? In that instance your statement would have only made sense if you were insisting that a human is still a fetus.
This was a joke, you see because eggs come from chickens.
Anyway speaking seriously, my answer is no. I think of it like this, if you can't survive on your own, you have no person hood, no rights, no anything. You are little more than perhaps, a tumor (to put it crudely).
The value for life depends upon the opinions of every individual but using the rules of biology, science has agreed upon that a fetus is no different from a human. The only difference is the fact that many are inventing lies to dehumanize it.
That's funny because if you inspect the two you'll see that a fetus is very different than a human. A human would be to a frog as a fetus would be to a tadpole. It will become one in the future, but as it stands it's a different creature, and it's still developing. It has special characteristics unique to it, that humans don't have, and vice versa.
Honestly, how odd would it look if a person was walking down the street with an umbilical chord still attached, and his body unable to ingest food without it?
What if a fetus was sitting in the placenta ingesting it through the mouth?
A human would be to a frog as a fetus would be to a tadpole. It will become one in the future, but as it stands it's a different creature,
If it isnt a human, then what is it?
"The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
-Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado
It has special characteristics unique to it, that humans don't have
A fetus has the shares the same DNA of its parents and it follows the characteristics that allows it to be defined as a living creature
Living things are made of cells.
Living things obtain and use energy.
Living things grow and develop.
Living things reproduce.
Living things respond to their environment.
Living things adapt to their environment.
Honestly, how odd would it look if a person was walking down the street with an umbilical chord still attached, and his body unable to ingest food without it
It would be as weird as someone who still depends on his parents for survival or be as weird as a patient who relies on insulin for proper digestion.
What if a fetus was sitting in the placenta ingesting it through the mouth?
Are you saying that a human is defined by the way he eats?
So does a tumor, but we won't be vying to save those any time soon.
Skipped
I'm saying a fetus is defined by it's inability to survive without the mother. The mother only that is, to say that it can't be removed and kept alive another way, or by another lady's womb. It's still apart of the female in question, it's not yet a person.
A tumor is growing, and has a lot in common with a fetus in the early stages of development.
If you would have quoted me correctly you would understand why this does not relate to a child. If a child is taken from it's mother, it can go to the local grocery store with a sob story, and eat, without actually needing his mother, a fetus can do no such thing.
If it's an off spring why is it attached? It has not yet sprung off, and if it were removed early it would die.
A tumor does not reproduce, it does not respond to the environment and it does not adapt. It is a disorder in the body cells.
So once again, are you judging a persons worth by their ability to eat?
Using puns as an argument is not an intelligent thing. The rules of science states that there is no exceptions in the definition of offspring and mere opinions can change nothing.
I will admit I'm surprised to read that. I still wouldn't call it a person because it's a human. It's still a human in the fetal stage of it's life.
It is a growing disorder in the body of the cells.
I am not judging the child by it's ability to eat, i am judging it by it's ability to survive, and it just so happens eating is one of the things you must do to survive. You are misunderstanding my analogy. If you remove a fetus, it stops growing and it dies. A living child is still growing and won't just die because it's not inside a house.
I am not using a pun, I am exampling that the word off spring is reserved for a child. A child that is no longer attached to the mother.
Ultimately this doesn't change my view over the question do I think a fertilized egg is a person. A fertilized egg is two merging gametes. A fetus is a human in it's quickly developing stage, but it is not a person.
I still wouldn't call it a person because it's a human.
You admitted that its a human but you still wont accept its existence because it is young? Quite a close-minded statement, dont you think?
It is a growing disorder in the body of the cells.
And so? It does not have all the 5 requirements to be considered alive and does not even have any future.
I am not judging the child by it's ability to eat, i am judging it by it's ability to survive
Yeah sure and where does it says that being a person is to be self sufficient? You just gave me your personal opinion about life. But in the end, it is logic and rational thinking that will dictate the answer.
Science has already gave you the answer. I wonder how long will your denial last.
It is the fetus of a human, not a human, that changes what your dispute was based upon.
As for why my view hasn't been changed it's because you have not proven that a fetus is a person, you've only attempted to prove it is human. Person-hood and simply being a human are different.
Thats amounts to nothing more than a well masked denial.
Simply put, the personhood of any creature depends on how many people supports its life. Once, animals have no rights, slaves are merchandise and Jews are pests. Today, a fetus is not a human.
The definition of being person changes for every generation. History has taught us that Democracy isnt justice. Is this really where you base your definition of a human? Voice of the masses?
Logic and rational thinking has already dictated that a fetus is no different from us, all the rest are plain denials
Actually logic and rational reasoning have brought me to the conclusion that anything that can't live on it's own isn't a person. It has nothing to do with the masses. if a bill was passed today stating fetuses are now people, I'd still consider it a silly law.
Do you mean because someone has to feed them? Well guess what. You can't feed a fetus. If it's not in the ooze that's forming what will make it a person it's dying. Me right now. I am not eating, but I am not dying, i am in a stable state. Elderly people who can't move on their own, need someone to feed them, have "the shakes" are still in a more stable state than an underdeveloped fetus.
Wrong, an elderly person that isn't eating is still surviving. When they run out of energy they will start dying. That is different than a fetus, that is just dying if it's not in it's ooze. I'm repeating myself now, you're a fool if you seriously think this is referencing "food" again.
I'm repeating myself once again. A fetus is without energy of it's own. it's not stable, it's not like a fetus can just live in a jar being fed occasionally. it's dying if it's not growing in the mother.
We don't have ethical duties to rocks, a piece of hair or a fertilized egg for the same reason: they're not sentient. They have no desires or preferences of their own. Therefore nothing about their nature warrants ethical consideration. There's also an enormous practical difference between a sentient being and something you could hardly see with your bare eyes.
Of course not. A zygote has no brain activity whatsoever. Pregnancy does not even begin until implantation when the organism sheds the zona pellicuda and implants, usually in the womans uterus.
